5.  The first applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving several sentences in Varna prison. The second and the third applicants were born in 1964 and 1979 respectively and live in Plovdiv.
6.  In three sets of criminal proceedings, which ended in October 1995, January 2002 and February 2002 respectively, the applicant was found guilty of robbery, fraud and forgery and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
7.  The first applicant has been detained in Varna prison since 15 March 1999. On a number of occasions − in particular from 4 to 25 October 2002; 18 to 25 November 2002; 24 March to 2 April 2003; 21 April to 1 May 2003; 19 June to 3 July 2003; and 11 September to 17 October 2003, he was transferred to Sofia prison in order to appear in court at criminal proceedings against him.
8.  According to the first applicant, during his detention in Varna prison he was held in a cell situated on the third floor, which measured four by seven metres and accommodated seven other individuals. The cell was dirty and the plaster was peeling off the walls. The available natural light was insufficient as was the artificial lighting provided by the two 75W bulbs. There were no sanitary facilities in the cell and access to such was provided only during the day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. However, there were only two sinks and two cubicles for over eighty prisoners. During the night, the prisoners had to use a bucket for their sanitary needs in front of everyone else in the cell. There was no hot water and bathing was provided once a fortnight or, sometimes, once every twenty to twenty-five days.
9.  Separately, the first applicant submitted that every time he was transferred to court he was placed in another cell, measuring two by three metres, with all the other prisoners who were being transferred on that day (usually fifteen to twenty-five persons). They were kept there from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and were not normally provided with access to a toilet. During the winter it was very cold in the cell, while in summer it was extremely hot and stuffy due to the number of people there.
10.  According to the first applicant, on the occasions he was transferred to Sofia prison (see paragraph 7 above) he was held in cell no. 1 of group no. 1, which measured four by nine metres and accommodated fourteen people. Fresh air and sunlight were insufficient as there was only a window measuring 40 by 60 centimetres which was covered with a hole-ridden metal sheet. The artificial light was also insufficient. The cell was dirty, stinking and damp and the plaster was peeling off the walls. The mattresses and covers were old, worn and dirty. There were no sanitary facilities in the cell and access to such was provided twice a day for a short period of time. The rest of the time the prisoners had to use a bucket for their sanitary needs in front of everyone else in the cell. The first applicant was not allowed to bathe or wash his clothes. In addition, the cell was flooded from 15 September to 1 October 2003, so he had to sleep on wet bed linen and was ill as a result.
11.  On 30 October 2003 the first applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice, claiming a total of 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN, 511 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages stemming from the conditions in which he had been detained at Sofia prison during the periods specified in paragraph 7 above. In a judgment of 4 May 2005 the Sofia District Court partly granted the claim. It found that the first applicant had been confined in a cell with insufficient lighting and ventilation, without a toilet and running water in the cell itself, with dirty and damp bedding; prisoners had been allowed to go to the toilet two or three times a day for five to ten minutes and were forced to use a plastic bucket to relieve their needs in the meantime; prisoners temporarily transferred to Sofia prison, such as the first applicant, had not been allowed to bathe. Furthermore, in September 2003, the first applicant's cell had been flooded and all the mattresses and bedding had become wet. The prison administration had not replaced them and the first applicant had become sick. He had asked to be examined by a doctor but his request had been disregarded. The Sofia District Court concluded that the conditions in which the first applicant had been detained were exceptionally harsh and humiliating. However, noting that the first applicant had been detained in Sofia prison for only short periods of time, it found that BGN 300 (EUR 153) was sufficient compensation for the inconvenience sustained by him. It further awarded BGN 150 (EUR 77) in connection with the failure of the prison administration to provide the first applicant with medical treatment. It also ordered the first applicant to pay a state fee of BGN 22 (EUR 11) in respect of the dismissed part of his claim.
12.  Following appeals by both parties, in a final judgment of 27 February 2006 the Sofia City Court upheld the judgment of 4 May 2005 with similar reasoning. A writ of execution was issued to the first applicant on 6 April 2006.
(b)  The second set of proceedings
13.  On 27 September 2005 the first applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice, claiming a total of BGN 2,700 (EUR 1,380) in non-pecuniary damages stemming from the conditions in which he had been detained at Varna prison in the period from 6 June 2002 to 26 September 2005 and for the alleged unlawful monitoring of his correspondence with his lawyers.
14.  At a hearing on 20 January 2006 the Varna District Court questioned an inspector from Varna prison in charge of the social and educational activities. He stated, inter alia, that all incoming correspondence was opened, and sometimes read, by the prison administration in spite of the name of the sender appearing on the envelope. This was done because the administration could not be sure about the real identity of the sender.
15.  The first applicant's claim was partly granted by the District Court on 15 August 2006, and upon appeal, by the Varna Regional Court on 24 April 2007. The courts found that the first applicant's cell had measured 3.22 metres by 4.30 metres, had been overcrowded and in a very poor state of repair, with insufficient lighting and ventilation; there had been no running water or toilet in the cell and during the night prisoners had been forced to use a plastic bucket to relieve their needs; there had been no hot water in the common sanitary premises and the first applicant had had to wash himself and his clothes with cold water and dry them in the cell; prisoners had been allowed to bathe only once a fortnight or sometimes once in twenty-five days and the food had been of poor quality. Furthermore, every time the first applicant had been transferred to court he was placed in another cell, measuring 2.37 metres by 1.90 metres, with all the other prisoners waiting to be transferred on that day − usually fifteen to twenty-five persons. They had been kept standing there for hours with no access to a toilet. During the winter it had been cold in the cell while in summer it had been hot and stuffy. As to the monitoring of the first applicant's correspondence, the courts established that all incoming mail had indeed been monitored by the prison administration. The courts then made a separate analysis of each complaint by the first applicant and found that certain of the conditions complained of, such as the limited access to a toilet and running water, the use of a bucket, the low quality of the food, the poor personal hygiene and the conditions in the special cell for prisoners awaiting transfer, had been humiliating or even dangerous for the first applicant. They awarded him BGN 1,400 (EUR 716) in non-pecuniary damages. In respect of the remaining complaints, the courts, holding that the first applicant had failed to prove that he had sustained any mental anguish or suffering, made no award. As regards the monitoring of the first applicant's incoming correspondence, the courts found that this was justified for verifying the identity of the sender. They ordered the first applicant to pay BGN 208.80 (EUR 107) in state fees in respect of the dismissed part of the claim.
(c)  Subsequent actions
16.  On an unknown date, the first applicant brought two more actions against the Ministry of Justice in connection with the conditions in which he had been detained at Varna prison in subsequent periods: from 27 September 2005 to 14 December 2006 and from 15 December 2006 to 23 September 2007. According to the latest information submitted by the first applicant, the cases are still pending.
17.  On 11 November 2003 the first applicant retained the second and third applicants to be his legal representatives before the Court in the context of application no. 4473/02. Their legal practice is situated in Plovdiv, so the primary means of communication between the applicants was through written letters sent by ordinary mail.
18.  On 11 March 2004 the first applicant sent a letter to the second and third applicants. Upon receiving it, the latter established that the letter had been opened, had been dated and stamped with a reference number by the prison authorities and had then been placed in a new envelope with an accompanying letter from the warden of Varna prison, with the same reference number, which stated the following on a pre-printed form:
“Attached, we send you the request from the prisoner KRASIMIR NIKOLOV ILIEV as appropriate”.
19.  The letters of the first applicant of 18 May, 8 June, 16 June, 23 July and 10 August 2004 were processed in the same manner and were each packaged in two envelopes. The procedure followed in such cases involved the first applicant placing the letter he wanted to mail inside the first envelope and delivering it to the prison authorities. Upon receipt, the prison authorities assigned the letter a reference number, dated and stamped it with the seal of the Ministry of the Interior, and allegedly copied it. They then placed the first envelope into a second, larger envelope which was sealed and mailed to the second and third applicants.
20.  A letter from the second and third applicants, dated 7 June 2004, was received by the first applicant opened, dated and stamped with the seal of the Ministry of the Interior, assigned a reference number and with a handwritten note indicating that it was “For Krasimir Nikolov Iliev”. In reference to this letter, the first applicant informed his lawyers in his letter of 16 June 2004 as follows:
“... Please have in mind that your letters are being opened here in my absence and probably photocopied, as it happened with the last one. ...”
21.  In his subsequent letter to his lawyers of 23 July 2004 the first applicant noted the effect of the above procedures on their communications as follows:
“... On the other hand, that which I must comment on and share with you as information, I cannot write because the letters are being read and probably copied. ...”
22.  In his letter of 10 August 2004 the first applicant stated the following:
“... Your letters to me are [definitely] being opened and monitored before they are delivered to me, [similar to] my [letters] to you [which] are checked and then sealed. Proof of this is the seal [and] reference number on your letter... But the administration of the prison does not deny that it monitors my correspondence with you (similar to the opening of letters coming from the Court). ...”.